Sydenham Town ForumThe Community Voice for London SE262018-04-13T12:55:57+00:00https://sydenham.org.uk/forum/feed.php?f=92018-04-13T12:55:57+00:002018-04-13T12:55:57+00:00https://sydenham.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4199&p=171287#p171287https://se23.life

]]>2018-02-15T19:22:31+00:002018-02-15T19:22:31+00:00https://sydenham.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4199&p=169235#p169235I’m very surprised that the Admin of SE23.com has not taken the thread down. I am not alone in assuming it is the Admin who is runnng the fake account (which is why posts pointing out it is fake have been removed).

He is also most likely to be the sock puppet Hillview, who does nothing but repost newsworthy items from SE23.life.

]]>2018-02-15T19:14:45+00:002018-02-15T19:14:45+00:00https://sydenham.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4199&p=169233#p169233Sgt Biddle told me that he had never heard of SE23.com and had never had an account there. He said he uses SE23.life. I then had a look at that website and it appears that all of the updates from a thread on there were just being copied and pasted over to SE23.com. He soon put an update on SE23.life mentioning that he doesn’t use the other site.

I pointed this out on SE23.com to reassure the people that had asked repeated questions (as it reflected badly on the local police as it looked like they were ignoring concerns and questions) and my post was promptly deleted. As was another post pointing out the same thing.

I now appear to be banned/suspended. I have had no communication from whoever runs the site despite two emails (admittedly both sent this afternoon) querying what has happened.

]]>2017-12-21T17:09:46+00:002017-12-21T17:09:46+00:00https://sydenham.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=18235&p=167217#p167217Statistics: Posted by admin — 21 Dec 2017 17:09
]]>2017-12-20T17:47:16+00:002017-12-20T17:47:16+00:00https://sydenham.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=18235&p=167179#p167179There seems to be no way of doing it.

]]>2017-05-13T11:50:07+00:002017-05-13T11:50:07+00:00https://sydenham.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=17323&p=153847#p153847Statistics: Posted by Pally — 13 May 2017 11:50
]]>2017-05-12T13:21:20+00:002017-05-12T13:21:20+00:00https://sydenham.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=17323&p=153829#p153829However, once loaded back onto the submit screen, minus the quote, you can scroll down and find the original poster's post in the Topic Review box. Clicking the "quote" button will bring it up into your draft, not at the beginning but wherever your typing cursor was sitting.

I hope that makes sense. I used to think that if you wanted to quote someone you had to start by quoting them, but not so as it can be introduced anytime into your reply box.

]]>2017-05-12T12:59:33+00:002017-05-12T12:59:33+00:00https://sydenham.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=17323&p=153827#p153827Go to it via:User Control PanelFront PageManage Drafts, where your new one should be listed. (I think you've already got that far.)

Now, under the date on your draft it says "Load draft . View/Edit"Click on Load draft.

Your draft will appear, to finalise. This screen has a preview and submit buttons below.

appletree wrote:I agree the thread is depressing but am not sure why Stuart was so hostile to Chris Beach for his initial posting when CB did not start the thread. Why was it a breach of confidence or civility for him to introduce himself?

It wasn't Appletree.

I have no problem with Chris making a pitch for SE26.life. Its surely what this forum is for? I have no problem with Chris as a poster. I have met him at a SE23.life jolly and found him an amiable fellow. If that has been it I would not even have responded.

However, Chris revealed publicly he was meeting me to discuss his project. There was an inference that I may be part of it. It was a private meeting which I had not shared with anyone precisely because I would not be part of any forum administration and that is what and why I wanted to explain to him. Revealing our proposed meeting in public with no forewarning compromised me in an embarrassing way and would, I assume, cause unnecessary concern to other parties including the STF Admin that I may be going behind their back.

This, I feel, and still do - was a misjudgement on his part.

Hence, though I would have wished not to respond as I did, I had no alternative to make my position clear to all. I hope that explains things a little more clearly and hope you can see my point - even if you consider my response too strong. Its hard to calibrate these things.

You are right it is deeply depressing. I just feel so sad that the FH Forum Wars has spilled over the border into Sydenham which has, IMHO, done neither FH Forum any good. Do we want to repeat that here?

]]>2017-04-13T10:43:05+00:002017-04-13T10:43:05+00:00https://sydenham.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=17175&p=152727#p152727As I said, I hold no brief for SE23.life and have never met anyone concerned with it, but it is doing a better job as a local forum than any if the others in the area except the one in Dulwich.

]]>2017-04-12T20:00:01+00:002017-04-12T20:00:01+00:00https://sydenham.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=17175&p=152689#p152689Statistics: Posted by P1971 — 12 Apr 2017 20:00
]]>2017-04-12T19:58:06+00:002017-04-12T19:58:06+00:00https://sydenham.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=17175&p=152687#p152687Retailers get punters through the door by vetting them.Lovely to see such community spirit.

]]>2017-04-12T19:24:13+00:002017-04-12T19:24:13+00:00https://sydenham.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=17175&p=152685#p152685Though I have supported Chris's idea from the very start, from deciding on the name to verifying members & supporting his idea to start up this forum as to me it was a no brainer & would benefit the SE23 community which it certainly has!

SE23.life is a brilliant forum for all members in my eyes & Chris has done an amazing job doing this.

I will say again though I think the community on here need to decide if they want SE26.life to go forward or not & I support the majority decision on this.

If anybody wants my advice regarding forums it is that: 1. You can't have more than one successful local forum in any area2. Super-forums cannot replace the value of ultra-local forums which are focused on a self-defined community3. Excessive moderation will undermine the value of a forum to a community4. Forums dominated by less than 3 individuals (three individuals posting >75% of posts) fail to provide the balance that reflects the community and stifles proper discussion of issues

Based on these guidelines I can't say that I have ever been completely happy with any of the local forums.

]]>2017-04-12T14:27:24+00:002017-04-12T14:27:24+00:00https://sydenham.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=17175&p=152647#p152647Stuart ran the STF very successfully for many years. As he says, he is no longer involved, apart from giving technical advice. We have not yet heard the views of the existing admin of this forum. Would this be the appropriate time?

This forum, SE23 life, the East Dulwich Forum and Penge Tourist Board Facebook page (and I'm sure many others) are all excellently run as they are. However, there may be, and probably are, many other forums or other areas where Chris Beach''s talents would be invaluable, as they are in SE23 life.

Like many others, I am a member of SE23 forum, SE23 life and of this forum. I wholeheartedly endorse the views as expressed by Rachel and Pauline that it is for the members of this forum to decide, so I shall go along with any decision that they make.

]]>2017-04-12T14:06:18+00:002017-04-12T14:06:18+00:00https://sydenham.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=17175&p=152643#p152643I too wish everyone a happy Easter, and hope that this thread will not end on the current rather angry note. It would be really nice if the people involved got together (secretly, this time?) and then reported back to us all some positive proposals for ways in which this forum and any future se26.life might work together or at least co-exist in a friendly way.

]]>2017-04-12T13:24:21+00:002017-04-12T13:24:21+00:00https://sydenham.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=17175&p=152637#p152637I find the last few posts rather confusing as to who is being accused of doing or saying what.

stuart wrote:So, to be clear, you were not referring to me? And if not, what point are you making relevant to this thread?

I'm quite keen for this thread not to become an unconstructive personal battleground between admins.

I'm not an admin Chris. You know that. I'm not distrusting of profit making business. You know that. I have asked you and your colleagues to be constructive. You know that. You have been asked some direct questions. You have avoided them.

I have tried to always treat you professionally and correctly. In return I get baseless innuendos. This is not a game Chris. Its how to think out the best way to organise the future of online forum discussion in Sydenham. It isn't personal - because I am not the Admin. What happens won't be decided by me. I stepped aside because I am using my skills and time elsewhere.

Its not something I'm going to lose sleep over. It doesn't affect to me - except where and if I will be posting locally in the future.

If I believed you could offer a better option than the current STF then you would have my support. However in the course of 2/3 days you have moved me from a neutral position to one where I currently believe you have not only not made but unmade any justification. That takes some doing.

]]>2017-04-12T12:25:01+00:002017-04-12T12:25:01+00:00https://sydenham.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=17175&p=152631#p152631It revealed to me things I didn't know about you which may be relevant as the sponsor of a community forum. Why not respond to the message rather than attacking the messenger?

You seem very good on innuendo. Sometimes I think you are getting us all confused with your prejudices.

se23.life wrote:I understand that some people of certain political persuasion may distrust profit-making businesses.

I have worked all my life for private business. I have run my own for the last twenty-odd years.

I have enthusiastically shared profit-making business with people of all political occasions (actually anarchists can fit in well to some positions). So, to be clear, you were not referring to me? And if not, what point are you making relevant to this thread?

]]>2017-04-12T12:00:24+00:002017-04-12T12:00:24+00:00https://sydenham.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=17175&p=152625#p152625But I don't believe building a sustainable business necessarily has to hurt others or create exploitation.

Regarding advertising, I would never operate a "bait and switch" operation where a site is established to critical mass and then saturated with adverts.

I'm of the Zuckerberg mindset - ads are "not cool", and sites with ads are not cool. He eventually built a business model that served ads that were reasonably well tailored to the recipient, and used that money to improve the technology of Facebook.

I'd want to limit ads further than on FB and ensure that they are a) local businesses and b) displayed sparingly. And there will never, ever, be any cost to non-business users of the forum

But I do want to build a business model because it means I can invest more into these websites, whether that means my own time, or compensating moderators for their time, or purchasing better technology and infrastructure.

Having said that, I do not personally rely on ad revenue from any of my websites, and the future of SE23.life (and other potential local forums) won't rely on generating income from them. They're cheap for me to run, and I thoroughly enjoy it as a pass time. And I have met the most brilliant local people as a result. I care sincerely about the concept.

]]>2017-04-12T10:49:50+00:002017-04-12T10:49:50+00:00https://sydenham.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=17175&p=152623#p152623STF was, and is, run of as free community forum with no cost and no income either. Its objective was purely to be of service to the community and open to all owing no favours. It has seen off competitive sites that have tried to capture the 'market' for private profit or public money. This one, however, appears more dangerous.

Do we really want to entrust community conversation into one with such political and pecuniary views and ambitions at its heart? Become like FaceBook where the members were lulled into becoming the product to be thrown at the ad-slingers?

On Monday I go back to full time contract work. I'm grateful for the paid work, and I'll give it my all, but one day I'd like to develop a viable income from my personal projects. Running a dozen "Dot Life" websites could be a profitable business.

On Monday I go back to full time contract work. I'm grateful for the paid work, and I'll give it my all, but one day I'd like to develop a viable income from my personal projects. Running a dozen "Dot Life" websites could be a profitable business.

]]>2017-04-12T09:55:58+00:002017-04-12T09:55:58+00:00https://sydenham.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=17175&p=152613#p152613Sockpuppetry is an evil that was, in my day, the speediest way to get banned especially if one wants people to post anonymously - which is pretty essential if you want whistle blowers. In this case a loud whistle does appear to have been blown to which, for one, I am grateful. (being born in Smethwick and having Enoch as the neighbouring MP). You can guess my surprise and horrified reaction.

Why not deal with that rather than try and confuse the question by casting vague ad-hominen innuendos which compromises the trust on which this forum has and, I hope, still run? As for sockpuppetry allegations - as an experienced moderator would that have been best dealt with by the Admin?

Can I ask the three of you to take a deep long breath, review the situation, and decide whether you wish to proceed when you are bound to come against fierce resistance even from those, like me, who would have been open to constructive improvements in how we speak and share in Sydenham.

]]>2017-04-12T08:31:59+00:002017-04-12T08:31:59+00:00https://sydenham.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=17175&p=152601#p152601Just to be completely clear, I wasn't for one second thinking you were "Bookshelf" I think "Bookshelf" could well be the same person who I think has also set up a few sock puppet accounts elsewhere!

And as Appletree & Rachael have said, at the admin of SE23.com's request this is the only reason why his forum is not mentioned on SE23.life.

]]>2017-04-12T06:11:23+00:002017-04-12T06:11:23+00:00https://sydenham.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=17175&p=152591#p152591Statistics: Posted by Rachael — 12 Apr 2017 06:11
]]>2017-04-12T00:03:45+00:002017-04-12T00:03:45+00:00https://sydenham.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=17175&p=152589#p152589But I don't think bringing "forum wars" to Sydenham is what Chris had in mind. He is a web designer and has created this software. It's been a success in Forest Hill so he is interested in what he can do elsewhere. Since no one is stepping up to manage this site, might it not be a good idea to be open-minded about it?

I'm not sure why I am posting on this since I have never met any of the people concerned, but as I belong to the SE23.life forum and have seen it succeed, the hostility here to a mild suggestion from Chris seems a bit unfair.

appletree wrote:As I understand it, the owner of SE23.com does not permit mention of SE23.life on his forum and has requested that people on SE23.life not mention his forum. So if there is such a rule on SE23.life, it is in an attempt to be obliging to the owner of the other forum.

I'll accept your word on that - it just didn't appear that way to me. Sorry if I misinterpreted.

However if the admin of SE23.COM had attempted to stifle debate here in any way - the 'Streisand effect' would have kicked in. The point was STF wasn't - and I believe - still isn't 'obliging' anyone. That's the whole point of a free community forum and the difference between STF & SE23.life and why some rude stuff about both has been posted.

Do we really want to bring Forum Wars to Sydenham? Here we can praise and criticise both the SE23 forums and they can say what they want here - even if it is unwelcome. That's the difference.

]]>2017-04-11T23:32:25+00:002017-04-11T23:32:25+00:00https://sydenham.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=17175&p=152585#p152585I think you are over-interpreting Pauline's message, Stuart; to me it sounded like she wondered who was posting under an unfamiliar name, but was not implying it was you pretending to be someone else.

P1971 wrote:With many sock puppets on se23.com (maybe an extension of that?) my thinking is to ignore your posts.

The common understanding of sockpuppet and the definition used here when I was an admin on this forum was a person supporting themselves whilst pretending to be somebody else. The most obvious target, and here I am assuming you have experience as a moderator, was myself as the one person who had questioned the ethicacy of Chris's actions. Otherwise you should have worded your concern otherwise.

Such an accusation is untrue. At the time of posting (10:42) I was helping leading a ride. There a lot of people who can testify I couldn't and didn't. Do I also have to deny using a surrogate too? Here's my report on the ride just in case you might think I'm making it up: https://anerleybc.org/tuesday-ride-11th-april-2017/

(Note the start time - top left - and if you check my GPX track you will see me moving through countryside at the time).

I have tried for so many years to do the best I could for Sydenham and provide an open discussion on all things SE26 and had to resist a fair share of pressure and worse to censor stuff. Moderation is actually not doing any unless absolutely necessary. And now we come to this?

What we have on offer is some pretty heavy handed stuff from two in this thread who would, it appears, replace this with a much more aggressive and complicated moderation. Will you also, as you do now, forbid discussion of competitive forums too? The fact that both this thread is here and the SE23.COM thread is here is proof of why we have done things differently and more openly down here.

People are, of course, free to vote with their feet as to which they might prefer. But as someone who has spent years weeding out sockpuppets and, I hope, trusted to try and act fairly and impartially to be impugned in this way I find immensely saddening. And while I admired the work Chris & yourself did in SE23 I think you still have some way to go in sorting your own ethics before undermining others and trying to cause division in SE26.

]]>2017-04-11T21:00:16+00:002017-04-11T21:00:16+00:00https://sydenham.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=17175&p=152575#p152575Unread postby BookShelf » 11 Apr 2017 14:57Call me old-fashioned, but I prefer my moderators to be less full of hate.

Bookshelf, I am wondering if your posts are sincere, given that your only 2 posts on this forum are the two on this thread, how did you come to this conclusion?

With many sock puppets on se23.com (maybe an extension of that?) my thinking is to ignore your posts.

Though I will more than happily listen to all others.

I will also say here I am not sure about an SE26.life forum but if others are interested & there is good feedback I'm sure it could work, but if the feeling here is to stick with what is known I back it all the way too.

]]>2017-04-11T14:57:42+00:002017-04-11T14:57:42+00:00https://sydenham.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=17175&p=152533#p152533Statistics: Posted by BookShelf — 11 Apr 2017 14:57
]]>2017-04-11T12:18:11+00:002017-04-11T12:18:11+00:00https://sydenham.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=17175&p=152517#p152517I am a member of all the forums concerned (SE23.com, SE23.life, and this forum). SE23.life has done a lot of good so far in getting people together, promoting good causes, and providing moderation that listens to users. I like it because more is posted there than on the other two forums. What I'd really like is a site as lively as the Dulwich one.

As for verification, I am not that keen (and have not got myself verified on SE23.life) but I can see why it might be thought a good idea. The point to take away, though, is that it is not a requirement for participation.

I have wondered whether, rather than developing a new site, joining forces might not be a good idea, either between Chris' platform and this one, or merging SE23.Life itself and this forum to cover a wider area. I note the Dulwich Town Forum seems to cover Peckham too. Maybe I feel this because I live only a minute's walk from SE23's border, though.

All of which would be relevant if Chris Beach had used the new SE23 forum to further his political views. He has not - you can see that if you look at the forum. There is an opt-in political section where such things are robustly debated that is held in strict segregation from the rest of the forum.

If he had used the forum to promote his own politics, there is absolutely no way I would be involved, and he knows that. It is possible to work with someone whose views you fundamentally disagree with. Indeed, I imagine most of us do, every day.

]]>2017-04-10T20:30:52+00:002017-04-10T20:30:52+00:00https://sydenham.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=17175&p=152461#p152461Statistics: Posted by P1971 — 10 Apr 2017 20:30
]]>2017-04-10T11:04:11+00:002017-04-10T11:04:11+00:00https://sydenham.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=17175&p=152415#p152415I don't think your intervention was at all unhelpful, Robin. I'm sure Chris intended to open up the discussion to this forum at some point anyway, and there is no reason why it shouldn't be now. However, it's all very tentative at this stage, and there are no plans, or desires, to do anything that would adversely affect the forum community that already exists here.

The case for a new forum for SE23 was pretty clear cut. There were two issues with the SE23.com forum: the outdated forum software and the draconian moderation. Neither of those are issues here. Indeed, when I first got involved with SE23.life, I pointed to this forum as a model of fair, even-handed and transparent moderation.

SE23.life has taken off for a number of reasons. The transparent moderation is done by a team who are all easily identifiable and have diverse outlooks. That helps. Local traders and organisations are also a core part of the forum, but FH has the advantage there of many of the traders being local. SE23.life also have a very active Facebook page and Twitter account. We recently had feedback from someone looking to set up a business in SE23 that they were impressed at how 'digitally joined up' SE23 is. That all comes from the SE23.life model.

I think SE23.life was successful in the first instance simple by not being SE23.com. But it is building into a strong community forum under its own merits now. Whether that continues or it is just the last hurrah of a dying format, only time will tell. Meanwhile, despite all its many strengths, activity on this forum has certainly decreased since I first joined, many moons ago. Is there a body of silent, lurking members that would like something different? Or is everyone happy with things as they are?

That's entirely for members here to decide and I for one wouldn't be party to any scheme that threatened the legacy of this forum.

]]>2017-04-10T09:59:47+00:002017-04-10T09:59:47+00:00https://sydenham.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=17175&p=152407#p152407Both SE23.life and STF are well-run forums which I am glad to participate in. I feel that they each have their particular strengths, and that it would be good if Stuart and Chris were able to find a way of working together. But I appreciate that may not be possible.

]]>2017-04-09T22:50:58+00:002017-04-09T22:50:58+00:00https://sydenham.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=17175&p=152385#p152385That's maybe why SE26 has one forum and SE23 two - both of which don't discuss each other! But I could be wrong. STF is a discussion forum and your proposal an interesting and possibly passionate discussion should make. That's what its all about.

]]>2017-04-09T21:40:22+00:002017-04-09T21:40:22+00:00https://sydenham.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=17175&p=152373#p152373I wish to make it clear that I am not implicated in the establishment of any other local forum in Sydenham or Forest Hill - nor would I ever be involved in one. My views (as the previous admin) on this has been made clear on many occasions both in public and in private.

I had intended to bring the founder of SE23.life up to speed on this and why I wouldn't be taking part and why I believe it would weaken decent discussion in SE26 by fragmenting the audience. The situation was and is very different in Forest Hill where a significant section of the community had issues with the moderation of SE23.COM. I don't believe that exists here as the current admin has continued the tradition of having open discussion on how this site is run and what software we should use.

I was somewhat shocked to read (above) that this private meeting was made public without the courtesy of letting me know and being mis-used IMHO to suggest something which must, at the very least, be very embarrassing to the current admin. And hence why I have had to make this regrettable post.

Running a local forum should, I feel, be based on trust between posters and those that run it. I'm afraid by posting the above the founder of SE23.life has lost my trust. I leave you to make up your own minds.

]]>2017-04-08T22:14:54+00:002017-04-08T22:14:54+00:00https://sydenham.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=17175&p=152297#p152297As Robin mentioned, SE26.life is a proposal (and a closed beta website) and I'm keen to speak to more people before taking it any further.

I'm meeting the founder of Sydenham Town Forum in person next week for a casual chat.

When I launched https://se23.life it was because the old se23.com forum had fallen out of use and hadn't been upgraded for years. It had autocratic moderation and shut out a lot of people. And yes, I was pissed off at being banned!

STF, on the other hand, is well-run and popular. I respect the huge legacy of this site and its good moderation.

HOWEVER - as Nick Barron pointed out on Brockley Central, Facebook is killing local forums:

I want us to survive, because FB is flawed as a platform for lasting, searchable, civilised local conversation.

Over the last eleven months the SE23.life forum model (verified users, opt-in groups, segregated politics chat, meetups, growing mod team etc) has proven itself a good fit for Forest Hill.

There are many questions to ponder before the model expands elsewhere in South East London, and where ever we go next, it has to be done carefully, without trampling on online communities that work well and have a roadmap for the future.

It's worth removing this from the blog roll as the Lewisham Council funded site appears to have been hacked and stolen by a US based plumbing company!

I'm starting to write more for the Fairlawn Park blog: https://fairlawnpark.wordpress.com/ about things to do and see around Sydenham and surrounding areas, weekends, things to do with families etc. I've given it a little revamp.

]]>2016-05-29T13:47:46+00:002016-05-29T13:47:46+00:00https://sydenham.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4199&p=137733#p137733One thing I like is that users can get 'verified' status by being endorsed in real life, either by meeting one of the admins / moderators, or popping into Sugar Mountain sweet shop and identifying themselves. There's a good feeling of local community already, and I think people's behaviour online will be much better when they have a sense of the real person behind the user name.

]]>2016-05-25T15:12:28+00:002016-05-25T15:12:28+00:00https://sydenham.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4199&p=137607#p137607Statistics: Posted by JRobinson — 25 May 2016 15:12
]]>2016-05-24T16:36:22+00:002016-05-24T16:36:22+00:00https://sydenham.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=14705&p=137555#p137555note to Sydenham.org admin - thank you for editing and explaining your edits. I'm also relieved to see that you allow discussion of other forums (that certainly wouldn't be allowed on se23.com). Hope we can meet up one day and chat about the trials and tribulations of running a local forum.

Rachael wrote:You get booted off SE23.com? No shame in it - has happened to even the most mild-mannered of us.

It's worse than that. I was responding to a thread about academisation, and as soon as I started defending (or, at least, explaining) the government's academisation programme, I found my posts weren't going through to the forum. I'd put a few minutes worth of time into writing a post, hit "submit" and be returned to the thread without my post appearing. I emailed "admin" and found out he's put my account in a special mode where he gets to decide if any of my posts reach the website. And clearly anything right-leaning just wasn't welcome.

That kind of moderation is really heavy-handed and opaque. It made me wonder who else had had their posts censored, and why.

Moderation on se23.life is more transparent - particularly when it comes to split/merged topics, which leave proper links on the old and new topics to each other. And admins can see every action taken by one another. So I couldn't go on some right-wing autocratic rampage without my co-admin (who is left-leaning) jumping in and exposing my actions publicly.

Rachael wrote:I'll be interested to see how the new forum goes. Many have tried to start something new, many have failed. I think you've got a better chance that some if you are making it more reactive and with real-time content. But time will tell.

The growth of the new forum in the first few days (it launched quietly last Monday) has been nothing short of stellar. And it helped to host a real-life meetup with people like Pauline (P1971), AnotherJohn, Snazy and co from the old forum to show them what the new software is capable of, and to introduce myself.

I'm sincere about this, and I will make it work.

I don't need to commercialise the website because I'm highly solvent from my day job, but I will allow a controlled amount of local business posting to emerge from the "Commercial" topic (which is muted for all new users) out into the main forum.

We won't be spammed to death, because spam control is a first-class feature of the software.

I am addressing the problem of sockpuppet accounts by using the automated trust system, and also by "verifying" profiles in real life with the help of Pauline, whose shop "Sugar Mountain" is the place to go for verification. Also our regular meetups, which I hope you will attend one day.

]]>2016-05-24T14:51:55+00:002016-05-24T14:51:55+00:00https://sydenham.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=14705&p=137549#p137549viewtopic.php?f=9&t=4199 if you're interested. It goes back quite a few years.

I'll be interested to see how the new forum goes. Many have tried to start something new, many have failed. I think you've got a better chance that some if you are making it more reactive and with real-time content. But time will tell.

]]>2016-05-24T14:38:46+00:002016-05-24T14:38:46+00:00https://sydenham.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=14705&p=137547#p137547chrisbeach here. Thanks for all the mentions. All PR is good PR, or so they say.

I understand why my politics would seem alien in SE London, which can be an echo-chamber of leftism at times. I'm not such a bad guy really, I just have different politics to you, and I will gladly engage in debating points. I believe the social problems we have can be solved by a mixed economy rather than purely by socialism. As a general rule, teach a man to fish, as opposed to buying a man a fish. Make exceptions for those who genuinely can't look after themselves, but never write anyone off to state dependency without a good reason. Exploit capitalism for its wealth creation and aspirational benefits (which have demonstrably brought hundreds of millions out of poverty all over the world)

Someone mentioned that Tories tend to block those who disagree. This hasn't been my experience (quite the opposite in fact).

You won't find me on se23.com anymore. It doesn't really work well as a forum, and it's administered in a heavy handed manner.

I will be spending time on https://se23.life - which I created it because I wanted a modern forum for this area that is community moderated, real-time updating and mobile friendy. I co-administer it with another resident of SE23, who happens to be left-leaning. It is also moderated by Snazy (Michael Snasdel). I'm confident this means it will avoid becoming left- or right-wing biased.

The nice thing about the software I use is that it automatically grants more features (including moderation features) to regular visitors as they become trusted members of the site.

Pally wrote: That's probably also because I'm not usually throwing in links and historical references, just giving an opinion.

The trouble with 'just giving an opinion' is that it's often difficult to respond other than by saying 'I agree' or 'I disagree'.

Not so much if its an opinion on the topic being discussed or a comment that has been made. Especially if the opinion is accompanied by reasons for that opinion and directly links to the topic under discussion!

mosy wrote:Recently I have noticed that it is the rod taylor and _HB show giving short shrift to differing views from their seemingly joint one. Even I, as a seasoned poster, see little point lately of "interfering" as I guess other seasoned posters have found since they're not exactly fighting for space either. If there is a deliberate intention of reducing the sub forum to zero, then just come out and say so.

That strikes me as a hugely unfair comment. I'm sorry, it really does. I've done everything I can to ask questions and stimulate discussion. It really feels very unjust that I'd be lumped in as part of the problem. I said several times I was trying to post in the spirit of friendly discussion. That really gets to me, Mosy, sorry but it does.

Robin Orton wrote:Another brave attempt by Nigel to introduce a new topic into the pub discussions and to create a welcoming atmosphere for potential new customers. I think we should all be very grateful to him and Eagle for their sterling work. I'm sure it will bear fruit eventually.

I'm not really sure I understand the classifications any more. As I understood it the Town Cafe was more conversational now, so therefore I don't see the role of the Town Pub, unless it is for discussions that are more of a debate than a conversation. I understand that the debate-style is off putting for so many people, so therefore what is the point in the Town Pub?

I find it mildly diverting to discuss the Middle East situation as a kind of mental frisbee-throwing exercise to break up a long working day; but I also understand that doing so is kind of irrelevant to the raison d'etre of the whole site.

I had a quick look at some back pages, and for a few years after the early announcement of the death of Heath Ledger the Town Pub was quite conversational, only really becoming political in 2011, a point at which the range of posters diminished.

]]>2016-04-22T06:42:06+00:002016-04-22T06:42:06+00:00https://sydenham.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=14705&p=136151#p136151Another brave attempt by Nigel to introduce a new topic into the pub discussions and to create a welcoming atmosphere for potential new customers. I think we should all be very grateful to him and Eagle for their sterling work. I'm sure it will bear fruit eventually.

JRobinson wrote:however I fear that internet forums are on the decline due to a lot of similar stuff happening on Facebook. There are many and varied local groups on Facebook already, that STF is mostly a replication of other stuff already out there, in an easier format to access.

The pity of the Town Pub being wound down is that it is one of the few places where you can access a cross-section of views.

I don't do social media, but I gather that facebook, almost by definition, groups people socially, and therefore, to a great extent, by political persuasion. I know that the left in London is sometimes surprised by events beyond their borders, cocooned as it is within its own self-selecting world.

But this is where the world is going - social media means you don't really have to worry that anyone you might be communicating with has dramatically different views or experiences from your own. Having said that I'm really not sure of the use of the Town Pub section any more. I think when a post on the Town Pub gets 10 views in 24 hours then it starts to feel like a half-empty party. It should probably be put out of its misery.

]]>2016-03-11T07:41:57+00:002016-03-11T07:41:57+00:00https://sydenham.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=15067&p=133215#p133215Your invite has been published. You are welcome. I have locked the thread because it was already attracting off topic and un-civil comments.

Nigel,

I have removed your reply from the above thread. If you want to debate the subject on those terms, the Pub is the place to do it,